Bismillahi Wassalatu Wassalamu ala Rasulillah.

Peace be upon him who follows the guidance.

A list of 20 Questions:

1. History testifies that when the Prophet (saaws) declared his Prophethood (saaws), the Bani Hashim were to a boycott by the Quraysh . Hadhrath Abu Talib (as) took the tribe to an area called Shib Abi Talib where they remained for three years, suffering from immense hardship. Where were Hadhrath Abu Bakr and Hadhrath Umar during that period? They were in Makkah so why did they not help the Prophet (saaws)? If they were unable to join the Prophet (saaws) at the Shib Abi Talib is there any evidence that they provided any type of support (food etc), breaching the agreement that the Quraysh boycott all food / business transactions with Bani Hashim?

Answer: They were with the Prophet (peace be upon him) because when this event finished and the Muslims were again allowed than Abu Talib said .

وھم رجعوا سھل بن بیضا راضیا      فسر ابو بکر بھا و محمد

انہوں نے جب سہل بن بیضا کو نقض معاہدہ پر راضی کر کے بھیجا تو اس پر حضرت ابو بکر بھی خوش ہو گئے اور حضرت محمد بھی۔

This is present in shia books

Nasikh ut tawarikh 5/22 (تاریخ التوریخ)

Also in sunni books with the above lines of Abu Talib

Al bidaya wan nihaya

Ibn Hisham

As far as Umar is concerned, the reason of this whole incident was his embracing Islam

Al bidaya 3/79

Also in shia books : Rauzatus safa (روضۃ الصفا) , volume 2 , page 49

Also , why not the shias talk about Hazrat Abu Asim bin Rabi’ah  in this case?

Abu Asim bin Rabi’ah  would bring food for the Muslims , The Noble Prophet praised him as follows; “We became in-laws with him, we were happy of his gesture, he promised us and fulfilled his promise.”

Shia book : Hayat ul Quloob , volume 2, Page 311

He was the husband of Zainab, the eldest daughter of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). It was the daughter of Abu Asim bin Rabi’ah , Omama bint Zainab whom later Ali married according to the will of Fatima.

2. Hadhrath Fatima Zahra died 6 months after her father (saaws), Abu Bakr died two and a half years later and Hadhrath Umar in 24 Hijri. Despite their later deaths how is it that they attained burial sites next to the Prophet (saaws) and not Hadhrath Fatima (as)? Did she request that she be buried away from her father? If so, why? Or did the Muslims prevent her burial? (see Sahih Bukhari Arabic – English Vol 5 hadith number 546).

Answer:

Sahih Bukhari , Volume 5, Book 59, Number 546 doesn’t say that Muslims prevented her burial next to the Prophet (peace be upon him), rather your own ahadith imply that Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) buried her at night time , and made many graves around her grave so no one could locate her grave [See Jilalul Ayoon , Hayatul Quloob etc]. So how do you blame Muslims?

This is because Abu Bakar and Umar especially asked from her the place while there is no record in the history that Fatima asked her to give place in her home in which the Prophet peace be upon him was buried there. If the shia can bring the proof of Fatima asking place from Aisha and Aisha thenceforth rejecting it, they should present that first.

Sahih Bukhari , Volume 5, Book 57, Number 50:

‘Umar then said (to ‘Abdullah), “Go to ‘Aisha (the mother of the believers) and say: “Umar is paying his salutation to you. But don’t say: ‘The chief of the believers,’ because today I am not the chief of the believers. And say: “Umar bin Al-Khattab asks the permission to be buried with his two companions (i.e. the Prophet, and Abu Bakr).” Abdullah greeted ‘Aisha and asked for the permission for entering, and then entered to her and found her sitting and weeping. He said to her, “‘Umar bin Al-Khattab is paying his salutations to you, and asks the permission to be buried with his two companions.” She said, “I had the idea of having this place for myself, but today I prefer Umar to myself.” When he returned it was said (to ‘Umar), “‘Abdullah bin ‘Umar has come.” ‘Umar said, “Make me sit up.” Somebody supported him against his body and ‘Umar asked (‘Abdullah), “What news do you have?” He said, “O chief of the believers! It is as you wish. She has given the permission.” ‘Umar said, “Praise be to Allah, there was nothing more important to me than this. So when I die, take me, and greet ‘Aisha and say: “Umar bin Al-Khattab asks the permission (to be buried with the Prophet ), and if she gives the permission, bury me there, and if she refuses, then take me to the grave-yard of the Muslims.” …  So when ‘Umar expired, we carried him out and set out walking. ‘Abdullah bin ‘Umar greeted (‘Aisha) and said, “‘Umar bin Al-Khattab asks for the permission.” ‘Aisha said, “Bring him in.” He was brought in and buried beside his two companions.

Abu Bakr was her father but he also got her permission to be buried near the Prophet (peace be upon him).

Again, the thing is the Prophet (peace be upon him) was buried in the residence of Aisha, and if anyone wanted to be buried there, he needed to get her permission. If you can tell us any narration which says Fatima (may Allah be pleased with her) had got this permission from Aisha , or Ali had asked her, than indeed your question carries value but when your own belief is that Ali buried her alone at night so no one could find her grave , how do you blame other Muslims? And if you reject such beliefs, than we can talk over it but your own beliefs???? Anyhow!

3. Amongst the companions Hadhrath Abu Bakr is viewed as the most superior.If this is indeed the case then why did the Prophet (saaws) not select himto be his brother when he (saaws) divided the companions in to pairs on theDay of Brotherhood? Rather, the Prophet (saaws) chose Hadhrath Ali (as)saying “You are my brother in this world and the next”3, so on what basisis Hadhrath Abu Bakr closer?

Answer: First of all , the narrations which say that Prophet (peace be upon him) chose Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) his brother are not authentic, see Silsila Ahadees Zaeefa by Albani. Secondly, this brotherhood was between the Ansar and Muhajireen , both Muhammad (peace be upon him) and Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) were Muhajir , and this brotherhood was meant to be between Ansar and Muhajireen so you can see that logically also, this is not correct.

Again, All companions had different distinctions. Ali (r) had the distinction of being selected as his brother along with many other distinctions, but Abu Bakr also had his share of distinctions…for instance

· He was a good friend and neighbor of Prophet Muhammad (saw) before the revelation of Quran to Muhammad saw.

· He was the first adult man and the first one outside the family of Prophet Muhammad saw to accept Islam.

· He had the unique distinction of being given the titles of ‘Siddiq’ and ‘Atiq’ by the Holy Prophet.

· Of all the companions, Rasool Allah (s) chose Abu Bakr as his companion for his journey to Madina for the Hijrat and he was his companion in Ghar e Sour about which the ayat of the Quran was also revealed.

· The Holy Prophet appointed Abu Bakr as the first “Amirul Hajj” in the history of Islam.

· Holy Prophet also appointed Abu Bakr as the Imam of Masjid e Nabawi to lead the prayers in his lifetime.

· In his last address at Masjid-i-Nabvi, the Holy Prophet ordered that all doors opening into the mosque should be closed except the door leading to the house of Abu Bakr.

· The Prophet said, “If I were to take a Khalil, I would have taken Abu Bakr, but he is my brother and my companion (in Islam).” Bukhari

How can anybody say and decide themselves that because Ali (r) was selected as his brother – therefore he is the best and the closest and superior than the rest while it is a fact that Holy Prophet also declared Abu Bakr as his brother and companion in Islam. Moreover if seen without bias and prejudice what can be more superior than being the Amirul Hajj and the Imam of Masjid e Nabawi and that too during the life time of Rasool Allah and selected by him!!?

4. The books of Ahlul Sunnah are replete with traditions narrated by Hadhrath Aysha, Abu Hurraira and Abdullah Ibne Umar. Their narrations far exceed those relayed Hadhrath Ali (as), Hadhrath Fatima (sa), Hadhrath Hassan (as) and Hadhrath Hussain (as)? Why is this the case? When the Prophet (saaws) declared “I am the City of Knowledge and Ali is it’s Gate”, did Ali (as) benefit less from the company of the Prophet (saaws) than these individuals?

Answer: Abu Bakr, Umar, Usman and Ali (r) all passed away soon after the demise of our Holy Prophet. Where as Aisha, Abu Huraira and Ibn Umar lived a long life…they had a longer time to interact with the next generation (Tabaeen) and pass on their knowledge to them. They had the time and the opportunity to establish hadith classes and teach hadiths to others. That is why there are few traditions related from Abu Bakr, Usman and Ali (r) while Ayesha, Abu Huraira and ibn umar have more narrations from them.

If you look at Shia books, they mostly have hadiths which do not even have a chain of narrators leading up to Prophet Muhammad  let alone being narrated by Ali or Fatima. They reject hadiths from Ayesha – the Umhatul Momineen as the wives are titled in the Quran .Their most authentic Hadith book called Al Kafi was written by Yaqoob al-Kulyanee  around 300 years after the death of Ali (r)!! and also after the death of their 11 imams.

Where as Sunii Hadith collection started during the life time of Rasool Allah and the first manuscript of hadiths was by ibn Habban who was the student of Abu Huraira and sunni hadiths books have narrations from all the companions including Ali (r) and Fatima and others…..

5. If Hadhrath Ali (as) had no differences with the three Khalifa’s why did he not participate in any battles that took place during their reigns, particularly when Jihad against the Kaffir’s is deemed a major duty upon the Muslim? If he did not view it as necessary at that time, then why did he during his own Khilafath unsheath his sword and participate in the battles of Jamal, Sifeen and Naharwan?

Answer: It is a historical fact which the shia seem to ignore that Ali (r) was an active member of the Khilafat during the reign of Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman  and was in the Majlis e shora as he was expert in many fields and had a lot of knowledge. His opinion in court cases was sought which shows that he was busy in other matters and was not part of the army because his advice was needed more in the court then in the battle field.

Secondly, this is proof in itself that Ali (r) accepted the Khilafat of Abu Bakr and Umar and Usman (r) as he did not rise against them and ask for his right of khilafat. If he was wronged and injustice was done against him, he being so brave, would definitely have risen against him as he did against the Caliphate of Muawiyah.

So if he accepted the caliphate of abu bakr n umar n uthman and never rose to do jihad against them and ask for his right to caliphate then why can’t the shias accept their caliphate??? Do they want to imply that Ali (r) was a coward (naauzobillah) during their reign? How come he suddenly became brave and fought against muawiyah? Was he brave or was he a coward!!!???

It is a well known fact that he was one of the bravest soldiers who fought many battles during the life time of Rasool Allah. He never  kept quit at any injustice and it is not at all possible that he kept quiet during the reign of Abu Bakr and Umar and Usman and did not wage any jihad against them.

6. If (as is the usual allegation) the Shi’as were responsible for killing Imam Hussain (as) then why did the majority Ahl’ul Sunnah not come to his aid? After all they were in the majority, there were millions of such individuals, what was their postion at that time?

Answer:  Briefly stating Hasan (r) first of all he never expected this to happen and he never went to fight a war – as he went with very few men including his family with women and children. No one goes for Jihad with women and children!! He was traveling to Kufa on their invitations of support, not Jihad. So there is no question of other Muslims joining him for jihad as there really was no call for Jihad! and most of all at that time there was no media to inform others about what what happening as sending messages took time as journeys were on foot or camels or horses. Dont forget that the tragedy of kerbala happend in what is not Iraq and the Muslim mainland of Arabia was very very far off.The question and any replies to it have nothing to do with proving that 12ers Shia is the right version of Islam.

7. If Hadhrath Umar was correct when he denied the dying request of the Prophet (saaws) on the premise that the `Qur’an is sufficient for us’ (Sahih Bukhari Vol 7 hadith number 573) what will be the reward for accusing the Prophet (saaws) of speaking nonsense? (See Sahih al-Bukhari Vol 5 number 716)

Sahih Bukhari

Volume 5, Book 59, Number 716:

Narrated Ibn Abbas:

Thursday! And how great that Thursday was! The ailment of Allah’s Apostle became worse (on Thursday) and he said, fetch me something so that I may write to you something after which you will never go astray.” The people (present there) differed in this matter, and it was not right to differ before a prophet. Some said, “What is wrong with him ? (Do you think ) he is delirious (seriously ill)? Ask him ( to understand his state ).” So they went to the Prophet and asked him again. The Prophet said, “Leave me, for my present state is better than what you call me for.” Then he ordered them to do three things. He said, “Turn the pagans out of the ‘Arabian Peninsula; respect and give gifts to the foreign delegations as you have seen me dealing with them.” (Said bin Jubair, the sub-narrator said that Ibn Abbas kept quiet as rewards the third order, or he said, “I forgot it.”) (See Hadith No. 116 Vol. 1)

Volume 5, Book 59, Number 717:

Narrated Ubaidullah bin ‘Abdullah:

Ibn Abbas said, “When Allah’s Apostle was on his deathbed and there were some men in the house, he said, ‘Come near, I will write for you something after which you will not go astray.’ Some of them ( i.e. his companions) said, ‘Allah’s Apostle is seriously ill and you have the (Holy) Quran. Allah’s Book is sufficient for us.’ So the people in the house differed and started disputing. Some of them said, ‘Give him writing material so that he may write for you something after which you will not go astray.’ while the others said the other way round. So when their talk and differences increased, Allah’s Apostle said, “Get up.” Ibn Abbas used to say, “No doubt, it was very unfortunate (a great disaster) that Allah’s Apostle was prevented from writing for them that writing because of their differences and noise.”

Volume 1, Book 3, Number 114:

Narrated ‘Ubaidullah bin ‘Abdullah:

Ibn ‘Abbas said, “When the ailment of the Prophet became worse, he said, ‘Bring for me (writing) paper and I will write for you a statement after which you will not go astray.’ But ‘Umar said, ‘The Prophet is seriously ill, and we have got Allah’s Book with us and that is sufficient for us.’ But the companions of the Prophet differed about this and there was a hue and cry. On that the Prophet said to them, ‘Go away (and leave me alone). It is not right that you should quarrel in front of me.” Ibn ‘Abbas came out saying, “It was most unfortunate (a great disaster) that Allah’s Apostle was prevented from writing that statement for them because of their disagreement and noise.

As you can see, your claim is totally wrong that Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) said that the Prophet (peace be upon him) is speaking nonsense. The hadith says “Some of them” and there is no mentioning whether Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) was included in them or not, and this you have added yourself, and we know the bigotry of shias very well.

Again, the companions didn’t say that he is delirious, read the words yourself

Some said, “What is wrong with him ? (Do you think ) he is delirious (seriously ill)? Ask him ( to understand his state ).” So they went to the Prophet and asked him again.”

Fatima (may Allah be pleased with her) doesn’t allow a person to talk to the Prophet (peace be upon him) saying he is ill and therefore can not talk to you.

Jilalulayoon volume 1 page 148

Again, we know that the Prophet (peace be upon him) lived for 3 to 4 days after this incident. He could have written down what he wanted afterwards too. But at that time, Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) thought it better not to disturb him.

As far as the statement of  Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) is concerned, that

‘The Prophet is seriously ill, and we have got Allah’s Book with us and that is sufficient for us.’

Shia commentary of Poya Mahdi (for the verse 2:2) says:

It makes no difference whether the termimamum mabin, in verse 12 of Ya Sin, is interpreted either as the Ahl ul Bayt or as the Quran, for these two are neither separate from each other nor will ever be separable, because one reflects the other.

I guess now it would be easier for the shias to understand the sunni point of view. Quran and Sunnah reflect one another, so if Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) mentioned only Quran, it is to be understood that he didn’t mean them separate but by mentioning only Quran, he meant both. Again, we know that Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) never ignored sunnah in his life.

Prophet (peace be upon him) said:

I leave among you the book of God, which, if you properly regard, you will never go astray ; then hold it fast.

Hayat ul Quloob, Translated by James L. Merrick , Page 334

Again, the Prophet (peace be upon him) was actually aggrieved at the hue and cry in the room, and that is why he told them to leave. The ahadith show that atlast, Prophet (peace be upon him) did tell them what he wanted, atleast verbally if not in written form.

Then he ordered them to do three things. He said, “Turn the pagans out of the ‘Arabian Peninsula; respect and give gifts to the foreign delegations as you have seen me dealing with them.” (Said bin Jubair, the sub-narrator said that Ibn Abbas kept quiet as rewards the third order, or he said, “I forgot it.”)

Shias also claim that in this event Prophet (s) wanted to give his will and select Ali (r) as the khaleefah, however they also claim that Ali (r) had been selected as the Khalifa at the Ghadir Khumm. – so why is this pen event so important.

So there is great discrepancy amongst the Shia version of facts!

8. Allah (swt) sent 124,000 Prophet’s to guide mankind. Is there any proof that on the deaths of any one of these Prophet’s his companions failed to attend his funeral preferring to participate in the selection of his successor? If no such precedent exists then why did the Prophet (saaws)’s companions follow this approach?

Answer: What the shias claim is false and Abu Bakr and Umar (r) went to saqifa and then returned back to take part in the funeral preparations.It was Abu Bakar who informed the other companions that Prophets are buried where they die and this RasulAllah should be buried in the room of Aisha where he died.

Anyhow, here is the book scan of Jilal ul Ayoon by Mulla Baqir Majlisi, which testifies that all the people of Madinah and the surroundings indeed performed the funeral of the Prophet (peace be upon him).

 

9. Of the 124,000 Prophets’ that Allah (swt) sent, what evidence is there that they left everything for their followers as Sadaqah (Charity)? If they did then why did the Prophet (saaws)’s wives not give all their possessions to the Islamic State? After all, Ahl’ul Sunnah consider the wives to be Ahlulbayt. Sadaqah is haram on the Ahlulbayt, this being the case why did they hold on to their possessions?

Answer: Your claim is that Fadak was inherited to Fatima, which is against the saying of the Prophet (peace be upon him) as present in both shia and sunni books

Let us now examine Sunni Hadith on the topic of Prophets and inheritance. Prophet Muhammad (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) said:

“We do not leave inheritance. What we leave behind is charity.” (Sahih Muslim, Kitab al-Jihad was-Siyar, no. 49)

“We, the Prophets, do not leave heirs.” (Musnad Ahmad, vol. 2 p. 462)

This is confirmed in Shia Hadith as well. Let us examine Shia Hadith in Al-Kafi, the most reliable of the four Shia books of Hadith, on the same matter:

“The Prophets did not leave dinars and dirhams as inheritance, but they left knowledge.” (al-Kafi, vol. 1 p. 42)

This Shia Hadith in Al-Kafi has two separate narrations, and is considered Sahih by the Shia.

The authenticity is confirmed by Ayatollah Khomeini, who used this Hadith to prove his claim of Wilayah al-Faqih. Khomeini said about the Hadith:

“The narrators of this tradition are all reliable and trustworthy. The father of ‘Ali ibn Ibrahim [namely Ibrahim ibn Hashim] is not only reliable, [but in fact] he is one of the most reliable and trustworthy narrators.”

(source: Khomeini, al-Hukumat al-Islamiyyah, p. 133, published by Markaz Baqiyyat Allah al-A’zam, Beirut)

 

And why curse Abu Bakar (may Alllah be pleased with him) only when Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) did not restore Fadak during his own rule? (Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Ibne Abil Hadeed, Vol. 16, Pg. 231) and no nonsense this time that Ibn Abil Hadeed is a sunni. He was a devout shia and Nahjul Balagha is a shia hadith book.

10. We read in the Qur’an “And whoever kills a believer intentionally, his recompense shall be hell, he shall abide therein and God’s wrath (Ghazibullaho) shall be on him and his curse (lanato), and is prepared for him a great torment” (Surah Nisa, v 93) History testifies that during the battles of Sifeen and Jamal 70,800 Muslims lost their lives. What is the position of the killers here? Is this verse not applicable to them? If these individuals opposed the Khalifa of the time and were responsible for spreading fitnah and murder, what will be their position on the Day of Judgement?

Answer: The fight of Jamal was ignited by those shias of Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) who didn’t want peace after the martyrdom of Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) because if peace had been restored, than they would have been questioned because they were involved in the martyrdom of Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) and later they joined Ali (may Allah be pleased with him). So they ignited the fight to protect themselves, and we know very well that when the fight ended, Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) and Aisha (may Allah be  pleased with her) understood the situation and reconciled and Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) led her to her home in respect, not like the present shias who curse her.

Read what Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) said to them :

You are not trustworthy to rely upon, nor are you holders of honour to be adhered to. You are very bad in kindling the fire of fighting. Woe to you! I had to bear a lot of worries from you.

http://www.al-islam.org/nahjul/124.htm

Don’t the shias realize that Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) would have said this on some basis? Don’t the shias even think?

That ‘s why Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) said:

By Allah, I have begun thinking about these people that they would shortly snatch away the whole country through their unity on their wrong and your disunity (from your own right), and separation, your disobedience of your Imam in matters of right and their obedience to their leader in matters of wrong, their fulfilment of the trust in favour of their master and your betrayal, their good work in their cities and your mischief. Even if I give you charge of a wooden bowl I fear you would run away with its handle.

O’ my Allah they are disgusted of me and I am disgusted of them. They are weary of me and I am weary of them. Change them for me with better ones and change me for them with worse one.

http://www.al-islam.org/nahjul/25.htm

  • Reasons of battle of Siffain

Muawiyyah (رضّى الله عنه) demanded that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) find and prosecute Uthman’s killers, because it was well known that the killers were from amongst the Shia’t Ali. Muawiyyah (رضّى الله عنه) was a blood-relative of Uthman (رضّى الله عنه) and he was very upset that the murderers were not apprehended. Muawiyyah (رضّى الله عنه), then the governor of Syria, refused to recognize Ali (رضّى الله عنه), and he demanded the right to avenge Uthman’s death (رضّى الله عنه). In what was perhaps the most important battle fought between Muslims, Ali’s forces (رضّى الله عنه) met Muawiyyah’s (رضّى الله عنه) in the Battle of Siffin.

The Shia say that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) fought Muawiyyah (رضّى الله عنه) for denying the Shia concept of the Imamah, and that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) was the first Infallible Imam. And yet the Shia’s own books say that this was not what the Battle of Siffin had to do with, but rather it was purely political as opposed to religious. Ali (رضّى الله عنه) clearly said in Nahjul Balagha:

“In the beginning of our matter, the people of Syria [Muawiyyah’s forces] and us met. It is obvious that our God is one, our Prophet is one, and our call in Islam is one. We do not see ourselves more in faith in Allah or more in believing His messenger than them, nor they do. Our matter is one, except for our disagreement in Uthman’s blood, and we are innocent from his murder.” [Nahjul Balagha, vol.3, p.648]

  • The Battle of Siffin

So it was that the Shia’t Ali met the Shia’t Muawiyyah. Caliph Ali’s forces were decimating the forces of Muawiyyah (رضّى الله عنه). It would have been a decisive victory for Caliph Ali (رضّى الله عنه), but the Shia’t Muawiyyah used a rouse to fool the Shia’t Ali. Muawiyyah’s Syrians adorned the tips of their swords with pages from the Quran. This confused the Shia’t Ali, who did not want to bring harm to the Quran.

The Shia’t Ali stopped fighting due to this trick, and the Shia’t Muawiyyah asked for a cease-fire and to resolve the issue through arbitration. Caliph Ali (رضّى الله عنه), being the noble man that he was, agreed to vote (use Shurah) for who would be Caliph. This greatly upset a contingent of his ardent followers, the Saba’ites, who did not agree that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) should use arbitration. The Saba’ites had been convinced by Abdullah Ibn Saba that Allah had appointed Ali (رضّى الله عنه) as Caliph. So they accused Ali (رضّى الله عنه) of going against the Will of Allah by resorting to negotiation on the matter. How could there be negotiation on a matter that is decreed by Allah Almighty?

A portion of the Saba’ites defected and turned against Caliph Ali (رضّى الله عنه). They declared vociferously: “No rule but to Allah!” These defectors came to be known as the Khawaarij, which literally translates to “those who go out” or “those who secede.” For so long, these people had been the most ardent supporters of Ali (رضّى الله عنه), calling themselves the Shia’t Ali and the Lovers of Ahlel Bayt, but look now where their doctrinal innovation had taken them. They defected against the very man they had claimed to follow!

This event in Islamic history is one that the Shia of today cannot explain away. They try to hide it under a rug, since it shows the falsity of their beliefs. The Khawaarij, former Saba’ites, were of the same belief of the Ithna Ashari Shia today, namely that Allah had appointed Ali (رضّى الله عنه) to be Caliph. And yet, Ali (رضّى الله عنه) agreed to arbitration with Muawiyyah (رضّى الله عنه). The million-dollar question, asked of course by the Khawaarij: how could Ali (رضّى الله عنه) agree to arbitration if it was a matter decreed by Allah?

How could Ali (رضّى الله عنه) agree to negotiation on this matter if Allah Himself had chosen Ali (رضّى الله عنه) to be this supposed “Infallible Imam”? Would Prophet Muhammad (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) agree to arbitration and negotiation on the matter of his Prophethood? So why would Ali (رضّى الله عنه) arbitrate and negotiate on the matter of his Imamah? In matters decreed by Allah, there can be no negotiation! For example, we cannot negotiate on the matter of eating pork or Salat, since these matters are already decreed by Allah.

This event proves without a shadow of doubt that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) was not divinely appointed by Allah nor by His Messenger, since he agreed to arbitration and agreed to Shurah (consultation) to decide who would be the Caliph. This proves that what the Ahlus Sunnah believes is correct: namely that Shurah is the way to elect a leader, much like how Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) was selected.

The Shia belief system is diammetrically opposed to the very Ali (رضّى الله عنه) they claim to follow, and soon will they also be faced against Ali (رضّى الله عنه), much like the Khawaarij [former Saba’ites] would turn against and face Ali (رضّى الله عنه); Ali (رضّى الله عنه) is he who denied all claims of divine appointment and of Infallible Imamah. Ali (رضّى الله عنه) denied this to the Saba’ites, the Khawaarij, and he will also deny this to the Shia of today, whose faces will be turned black on the Day of Judgement for their exaggeration and lies, where they will be grouped together with the people who defected against Ali (رضّى الله عنه), namely the Khawaarij. There is no plausible explanation that the Shia can give to the million-dollar question: why did Ali (رضّى الله عنه) agree to Shurah? It is indeed a slap to the face of the Shia faith.

  • Ali (رضّى الله عنه) Murdered by Saba’ites

In any case, the Khawaarij turned against Caliph Ali (رضّى الله عنه) and killed him. So it was that Muawiyyah (رضّى الله عنه) became the fifth Caliph. The irony should not be lost that the Shia are the ones who killed Ali (رضّى الله عنه) allowing Muawiyyah (رضّى الله عنه) to be the Caliph, and now look at the Shia today lamenting about Muawiyyah (رضّى الله عنه) stealing the Caliphate! There can be no denying that the Saba’ites and the Khawaarij are the fore-fathers of Shi’ism, since the Shia today hold the same opinion that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) was divinely appointed and thus arbitration (i.e. with Abu Bakr or Muawiyyah) cannot be accepted.

11. Allah (swt) tells us in the Qur’an “And of the people of Medina are those who are bent on hypocrisy. You know them not, but we know them”. (The Qur’an 9:101). The verse proves the existence of hypocrites during the lifetime of the Prophet (saaws). After his (saaws)’s death where did they go? Historians refer to the fact that two groups emerged following the Prophet (saaws) Banu Hashim and their supporters, the State and their supporters. Which side did the hypocrites join? The official Sunni version is that there were no Shia, or if there were there were only 4, all of whom they respect and undeniably believe will be in Paradise, while they believe the nascent Sunni party to have formed the bulk of the Ummah.

Answer: The truth is that there were no hypocrites in Makkah, because the Muslims were in minority , and there were huge oppressions on the Muslims, we hope you know very well. So no one was stupid enough to join the Muslims because every one who claimed to be a Muslim was oppressed. The hypocrites joined the Muslims in Madinah, because in Madinah, Muslims were in large number, and there were no oppressions on them, so to gain favour from them, and to destroy them from inside, the hypocrites joined the Muslims. And this verse is testifying, remember that there were no hypocrites amongst the people of Makkah who embraced Islam and migrated with the Prophet (peace be upon him) , it should be very clear. They were the people who embraced Islam when there were huge oppressions on Muslims, every Muslim was oppressed by the Pagans. I hope the shias know the history of oppressions on Muslims in Makkah very well which forced them to migrate.

The official sunni version is that there were no shias at that time, it doesn’t include and ifs and buts. It is to be very clear. It is your version that only 3 people were shias and all others apostated after the death of the Prophet (peace be upon him).

12. Ahl’ul Sunnah have four principles of law the Qur’an, Sunnah, Ijtihadand Qiyas. If one refers to the events of Saqifa, were any of these principles applied?

Answer: A complete confusion. First what the author is TRYING to refer to are principles of Fiqh and not governing a society. And there are more to it like Ijma and also including Ijtihad in the list shows that the author knows nothing about sources of Fiqh in Shia or Sunni discipline. If you read the history of Islam you will see that the holy prophet established a very democratic society in which many of the decisions ( of course except those revealed by God) were made through consulting with experienced people. What happened in Saqifah was in fact an approach that was established by the holy prophet himself. In this way you might say it was based on Sunnah and ijtehad. On the other hand there are absolutely no clear evidence for the doctrine of having 12 Imams in Quran and Sunnat. So the same question applies to Ithna Ashari themselves. The question and any replies to it have nothing to do with proving that Ithna Ashari Shia is the right version of Islam.

13. If rejecting a Rightly Guided Khalifa is tantamount to apostasy, what of those individuals who rebelled and fought the fourth rightly guided Khalifa?

Answer: They were not against his khilafat , but they wanted that the khalifa should punish the murderers of Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him). They were not against Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) being a khalifa.

14. It is a basic principle of rationality that if two parties have a dispute both can be wrong, but both can not be right. Applying this to the battles of Jamal and Sifeen, will both the murderers and the murdered be in heaven, because both were right?

Answer: No dear, there is another possibility, both have a portion of right and wrong. As for Jamal and Sifeen, as I said it all goes back to the intentions of individuals. It is possible that some one with divine intention in Muawiyah’s army be considered as martyr and some one with wrong intentions in Ali’s army just wasted his life. By this however I do not mean to justify the Muawiyah’s act of fighting Ali.

Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) said:

“Our martyrs and the martyrs of Muawiya (may Allah be pleased with him) will be in heaven” [Tabrani , Majmua Zawaid]

Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) was very sad at the martyrdom of Talha (may Allah be pleased with him) and he would tell his son , Muhammad , that I and your father will be in heaven.

It doesn’t mean that Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) had the knowledge of the unseen, rather he said this on the basis of the saying of the Prophet (peace be upon him)

عن عبد الرحمن بن عوف قال وقد نسب قوله الى النبي صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم
“أبو بكر في الجنة وعمر في الجنة وعثمان في الجنة وعلي في الجنة وطلحة في الجنة والزبير في الجنة وعبد الرحمن بن عوف في الجنة وسعد بن أبي وقاص في الجنة وسعيد بن زيد بن عمرو بن نفيل في الجنة وأبو عبيدة بن الجراح في الجنة” أخرجه أحمد والترمذي والبغوي في المصابيح في الحسان وأخرجه أبو حاتم وفيه تقديم وتأخير

[al-Tirmithi, Hadith 3747 & Volume 5, Page 605, Hadith 3748]
[Masnad Ahmad]

And we know that Shimr Zil Joshan was in the army of Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) in these battles, but does that mean he will be in heaven? No, as on the day of 10th Muharram, he was the one who killed Hussain (may Allah be pleased with him)

Similarly, when Umru bin Jarmuz killed Zubair (may Allah be pleased with him) , Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) said to him

“O the killer of the son of Safiyah, you will be in hell” Umru said “We kill your enemies and you tell us that we will go to hell?” [Akhbar-ut-tawal, page 149] Than he committed suicide.

Abu Salama asked Ali that tommorrow when we meet eachother in battle (of Jamal), what will be our end? Ali said “Whoever fought with pure intention, he will go to heaven”

[Tarikh Islam by Shah Muinuddin Nadwi , page 285]

[Tarikh Tabri, Page 3127]

And we know that on the day of Uhud, when Khalid Bin Waleed attacked Muslims from behind, this resulted in a great disorder in the Muslim army, and it was difficult to distinguish between friends and foes, many Muslims were killed by Muslims by mistake, but we know that this doesn’t mean that only one of the two will go to heaven. Rather both of them will go to heaven, because their intentions were pure.

Again we know that when the battles ended, Ali reconciled with them both times, and it was this reconciliation of Ali with them , which made many of his partisons, Kharijites. And they objected on Ali that why he didn’t enslave them (in the battle of Jamal) and why he reconciled with Muawiya.

So when Abdullah ibn Abbas went to them to debate with them, just before the battle between Ali and Kharijites began, he asked Kharijites to tell their objections on Ali.

So they said “There are three things, first of all, he made people arbitrators while Allah says “innal hukmu illallah” second thing is , he fought with people but neither enslaved them nor took their wealth as war booty. The third is that he removed his title “Amir ul Momineen” in arbitration.”

Abdullah ibn Abbas said “If I disprove you through the book of Allah, will you repent?” They said “Yes”

Than he presented the following verses of Quran in favour of arbitration , and proved to them, that arbitration is allowed by Allah.

[005:095]  O you who believe! do not kill game while you are on pilgrimage, and whoever among you shall kill it intentionally, the compensation (of it) is the like of what he killed, from the cattle, as two just persons among you shall judge, as an offering to be brought to the Kaaba or the expiation (of it) is the feeding of the poor or the equivalent of it in fasting, that he may taste the unwholesome result of his deed; Allah has pardoned what is gone by; and whoever returns (to it), Allah will inflict retribution on him; and Allah is Mighty, Lord of Retribution.

[004:035]  And if you fear a breach between the two, then appoint judge from his people and a judge from her people; if they both desire agreement, Allah will effect harmony between them, surely Allah is Knowing, Aware.

Than Abdullah ibn Abbas said “Isn’t it better to appoint men as judges so as bloodshed can be avoided , when this is allowed in the matters of women and game (which are much smaller issues than bloodshed)?” They said “Indeed , its good to appoint men so as bloodshed can be avoided (and they accepted arbitration)”

Than Abdullah Ibn Abbas said “The second thing you say is that Ali fought with people but didn’t enslave them or take their wealth as war booty. I ask you, will you take the mother of believers [033:006] , Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) as your slave? By God, if you say that you can enslave her, you will get out of Islam. You are trapped between two ignorances , Allah says

[033:006]  The Prophet is closer to the Believers than their own selves, and his wives are their mothers…

Now if you say that she is not your mother, than you are out of Islam (and the respect of mother is well defined in Quran)

They accepted their ignorance.

Than Abdullah ibn Abbas said “Your third objection is that Ali removed the title “Amir ul Momineen” from his name (during arbitration) than I will bring to you witnesses who will testify that while in the negotiations at Hudaibiya , when the peace treaty was being written with the leaders of the Mushrikeen i.e Abu Sufyan , Suhail bin Umru etc, and the Prophet (peace be upon him) told Ali to write

ھذا ما صالح علیہ محمد رسول اللہ

and the Mushrikeen said “By God, we don’t know that you are the Messenger of God, and if you were the Messenger of God, we would have never fought with you”

Than Prophet (peace be upon him) told Ali to remove the title “Messenger of God” from his name. Now look , by God, Messenger of Allah (i.e Muhammad) is better than Ali, and he removed the title “Messenger of God” from his name”, and this didn’t affected his being messenger of God (so if Ali removed the title Amir ul Momineen from his name during arbitration, this didn’t affect on his being Amir ul Momineen (leader of the believers)”

Two thousand Kharijites repented , and the rest remained on their ignorance.

[Excerpted from Devil’s Deception, by Ibn Jawzi]

15. The Prophet (saaws) had said “I swear by the one who controls my life that this man (Ali) and his Shia shall secure deliverance on the day of ressurection” . Do any hadith exist in which the Prophet (saaws) had guaranted paradise for Imams Abu Hanifa, Malik, Shafi, Hanbal and their followers?

Answer: The first thing is that this hadith is unauthentic. Secondly the person who is asking the question belongs to twelver sect. And we know that such hadith is not present for twelver sect too.

If you want to compare between shia and ahle sunnah wal jama’ah:

Al-Kafi

H 202, Ch. 22, h 6

It is narrated through the same chain of narrators from ibn abu ‘Umayr from certain persons

of his people who has said the following.

“Abu ‘Abdallah (a.s.) who has said, ‘Whoever disagrees with the book of Allah and the

Sunnah of Prophet Muhammad (s.a.) he has certainly become a unbeliever.’”

H 204, Ch. 22, h 8

“A man asked a question from Imam abu Ja‘far (a.s.) who replied to it and then the man said,

“The Fuqaha, scholars of law, do not say this.”

The Imam then said, “It is a pity. Have you ever seen a Faqih, a scholar of law? The real

Faqih, scholar of law is one who maintains restraint from the worldly matters, who is deeply

interested in the life hereafter and holds firmly to the Sunnah, noble tradition of the holy

prophet (s.a.)”

H 203, Ch. 22, h 7

Ali ibn Ibrahim has narrated from Muhammad ibn ‘Isa ibn ‘Ubayd from Yunus in a marfu’

manner from Ali ibn al-Husayn (a.s.) who has said the following.

“The best deed in the sight of Allah is the one that is performed according to the Sunnah, the

noble tradition of the holy Prophet (s.a.) even if it would be in small degree.”

H 199, Ch. 22, h 3

A number of our people has narrated from Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Khalid from his father

from al-Nadr ibn Suwayd from Yahya al-Halab from Ayyub ibn al-Hurr who has said the

following.

“Abu ‘Abdallah (a.s.) has said, ‘Everything must be referred to the holy Quran and the

Sunnah, the noble traditions of the holy Prophet (s.a.)”

Nahjul Balagha , Sermon 127

Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) said: Certainly you are the most evil of all persons and are those whom Satan has put on his lines and thrown out into his wayless land. With regard to me, two categories of people will be ruined, namely he who loves me too much and the love takes him away from rightfulness, and he who hates me too much and the hatred takes him away from rightfulness. The best man with regard to me is he who is on the middle course. So be with him and be with the great majority (of Muslims) because Allah’s hand (of protection) is on al jama’ah ( الجماعة ). You should beware of division because the one isolated from the group is (a prey) to Satan just as the one isolated from the flock of sheep is (a prey) to the wolf.

http://www.al-islam.org/nahj/127.htm

Someone may say why have I replaced the word “keeping unity” with (al-jama’ah), the thing is the actual arabic word here is (al-jama’ah) which has been translated by the shias as “keeping unity”.

The actual sentence in Arabic here is

الزموا السواد الأعظم، فإنّ يدالله مع الجماعة

be with the great majority (of Muslims) because Allah’s hand (of protection) is on al jama’ah

So we understand from this , that ahle sunnah wal jama’ah  are the people who are on the right path.

As far as the word shia is concerned, first of all the hadith is unauthentic, after that, we know that the ahlelbayt hated the shias, e.g

Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) said:

“O’ Kufa, if this is your condition that whirlwinds [of deciet] continue blowing through you, then Allah may destroy you…Your disobedience of your Imam in matters of right and their [the Syrian’s] obedience to their leader [Muawiyyah] in matters of wrong, their [the Syrian’s] fulfilment of the trust in favor of their master [Muawiyyah] and your betrayal, their good work in their cities and your mischief. Even if I give you charge of a wooden bowl I fear you would run away with its handle.”

Ali invokes Allah against his Shia:

“O my Allah, they are disgusted of me and I am disgusted of them. They are weary of me and I am weary of them. Change them for me with better ones”

http://www.al-islam.org/nahjul/25.htm

Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) want to change his shias because of their bad behaviour. So how can you claim that Shias of Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) will be successful, when the ahlelbayt were fed up of them in their own lives?

So certainly, the right group is ahle sunnah wal jama’ah, i.e follow sunnah and remain with the jama’ah , the great majority, rather than living as ten percent which by no means can be the great majority and the jama’ah.

So the present shias should start thinking now.

16. During her lifetime Hadhrath Aysha was a severe critic of Hadhrath Uthman, to the point that she advocated his killing . How is it that following his slaying she chose to rebel against Imam Ali (as) on the premise that his killers should be apprehended? Why did she leave Makkah, portray Hadhrath Uthman as a victim and mobilise oppostion from Basrah. Was this decision based on her desire to defend Hadhrath Uthman or was it motivated by her animosity towards Imam Ali (as)?

Answer: Click here!

17. If failing to believe in Hadhrath Ayesha is an act of Kufr what opinion should we hold with regards to her killer? Hadhrath Ayesha was killed by Mu’awiya (Tarikh al Islam, by Najeeb Abadi, Vol 2 p 44)   Answer: First of all, what is written there is Marwan , not Muawiya (may Allah be pleased with him). One more time Answering Ansar’s lies exposed. [For more , visit lies-of-answering-ansar.org] Secondly, if you can read , you will see that it is written down at the end of page , that this narration of Marwan killing Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) is not correct and is not proven from authentic sanad.

18. It is commonly conveyed that the Sahaba were brave, generous, knowledgeable and spent their time worshipping Allah (swt). If we want to determine their bravery, then let us delve in to history, how many kaffir’s did the prominent Sahaba Hadhrath Umar slay during the battles of Badr, Uhud, Khunduq, Khayber and Hunain? How many polytheists did he kill during his own Khilafath? If we wish to determine who is firm against the unbelievers it cannot be that individual who refused to go the Kaffir’s prior to the treaty of Hudaiybiya on the grounds that he had no friends and instead suggested Hadhrath Uthman go on account of he relationship to the Ummayah clan – against the obligation placed on him by a direct command of the Holy Prophet.

Answer: How many did Salman or AbuDhar kill? How many did Miqdad or Ibn Abbas kill? Daft question! According to shia beliefs, Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) didn’t work under the army of the 3 caliphs. But we know that the 3 caliphs defeated the super powers of their times , i.e Persia and Rome to which even shias testify. Why quarreling over how many men they killed, why ignore the super powers they defeated with an army lesser armed than the present Taliban of Afghanistan without the presence of Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) in their army as per your beliefs? If today, Taliban defeats America and Russia without the help of any foreign army, wouldn’t you call that person an idiot who will still say that Taliban are cowards? If it still doesn’t show that the sahaba were brave , than we recommend the shias to get admission in mad hospital. Muslims defeated Rome and Persia, two super powers of their times, and conquered Palestine for the first time under the leadership of Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) and this is more than enough to show that he was a very brave person and the sahaba in general were very brave people. And this is a historical fact, how much shias deny, that the victories of Muslims came to a halt under the leadership of Ali (may Allah be pleased with him). In short, if it is not narrated how many enemies a person has killed in a war, it doesn’t mean that he has not even killed any enemy in the war. And if this is the case, than let the shias tell us how many enemies Ali, Salman, Abu Dhar , Miqdad , Ibn Abbas, and other people whom they respect, killed in each war. And if they can’t show the exact figures, which indeed they can’t, because no one except Allah and they themselves know how many enemies were killed  at their hands, so if the figure is lesser , than will it mean only those number of people were killed at their hands? Indeed no. So it is proven that it is not necessary that it must be in history books that how much people they killed or otherwise they would not have killed anyone. Those wars were extremely tough wars, because the enemies of Muslims were much larger in number than the muslims , and only presence in such wars was a matter of huge courage. Not like the 18000 shias who broke their pledge of allegiance to Hussain (may Allah be pleased with him) and fled, running from an enemy which was more than 4 times lesser than they, i.e only 4000 men of Ibn Ziyad.

19. The Saha Sittah has traditions in which the Holy Prophet (saaws) foretold the coming of twelve khalifa’s after him(1). Who are they? We assert that these are the twelve Imams from the Ahlul’bayt. Mulla Ali Qari whilst setting out the Hanafi interpretation of this hadith lists Yazid ibn Mu’awiya as the sixth Khalifa?(2) Was the Holy Prophet (saaws) really referring to such a man? When we also have a hadith that states ‘He who dies without giving bayah to an Imam dies the death of one belonging to the days of jahiliyya’(3) then it is imperative that we identify and determine who these twelve khalifa’s are. 1. “The affairs of the people will continue to be conducted as long as they are governed by 12 men, he then added from Quraish” (taken from Sahih Muslim, hadith number 4483, English translation by Abdul Hamid Siddiqui) 2. Sharh Fiqa Akbar, by Mulla Ali Qari, p 175 (publishers Muhummud Saeed and son, Qur’an Muhall, Karachi) 3. ibid, page 175

Answer: Wasn’t Yazeed the same person whom the fourth imam of Shias has paid allegiance to him, Roza Kafi, Page 246? Anyhow, Various scholars have furthered their own guesses as to who the twelve Caliphs must be, but these guesses cannot be taken with absolute certainty, and due to this fact, any contradiction in various lists is not a sign of weakness but rather it is a natural result of a doctrinal view that forbids speaking with certainty on such matters. Therefore, no scholar would say that these are definitely without a doubt the twelve Caliphs, but rather he will speculate as to whom he thinks it may refer to.

20. Can anyone change Allah (swt) laws? Then why did Hadhrath Umar introduce Tarawih prayers in congregation, 4 takbirs for funeral prayers, 3 Talaq’s in one sitting and ban Mutah? What right did he have to substitute Allah (swt)’s orders in favour of his own?

Answer:

Your claims are totally wrong.

Tarawih:

Volume 8, Book 73, Number 134:

Narrated Zaid bin Thabit:

Allah’s Apostle made a small room (with a palm leaf mat). Allah’s Apostle came out (of his house) and prayed in it. Some men came and joined him in his prayer. Then again the next night they came for the prayer, but Allah’s Apostle delayed and did not come out to them. So they raised their voices and knocked the door with small stones (to draw his attention). He came out to them in a state of anger, saying, “You are still insisting (on your deed, i.e. Tarawih prayer in the mosque) that I thought that this prayer (Tarawih) might become obligatory on you. So you people, offer this prayer at your homes, for the best prayer of a person is the one which he offers at home, except the compulsory (congregational) prayer.”

Volume 9, Book 92, Number 393:

Narrated Zaid bin Thabit:

The Prophet took a room made of date palm leaves mats in the mosque. Allah’s Apostle prayed in it for a few nights till the people gathered (to pray the night prayer (Tarawih) (behind him.) Then on the 4th night the people did not hear his voice and they thought he had slept, so some of them started humming in order that he might come out. The Prophet then said, “You continued doing what I saw you doing till I was afraid that this (Tarawih prayer) might be enjoined on you, and if it were enjoined on you, you would not continue performing it. Therefore, O people! Perform your prayers at your homes, for the best prayer of a person is what is performed at his home except the compulsory congregational) prayer.” (See Hadith No. 229,Vol. 3) (See Hadith No. 134, Vol. 8)

Mutah:

Sahih Bukhari , Volume 5, Book 59, Number 527:

Narrated ‘Ali bin Abi Talib:

On the day of Khaibar, Allah’s Apostle forbade the Mut’a (i.e. temporary marriage) and the eating of donkey-meat”

In shia texts

Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) said : Prophet (peace be upon him) prohibited from mutah.

(Al Istibsar 3/142)

Four Takbeer:

Bukhari , Volume 2, Book 23, Number 337:

Narrated Abu Huraira,

Allah’s Apostle informed (the people) about the death of An-Najashi on the very day he died. He went towards the Musalla (praying place) and the people stood behind him in rows. He said four Takbirs (i.e. offered the Funeral prayer).

Proven from your own authentic books

Ilalul Sharaie by Shaikh Sadooq:

The Prophet (peace be upon him) used to say five takbeer on some people and four takbeer on some people.

Ilalul Sharaie, Four Takbeer in Funeral Prayer

Its another thing that afterwards it says that four takbeer were for hypocrites, the thing is it is proven from your books that the Prophet (peace be upon him) also did this, so it was a part of sunnah as proven from your books.